I know there's a thread already titled this, but it hasn't been active in years, so I was hoping I could engage more people in the topic.

Finished watching the RNC awhile ago and was curious what stances members of the org have on politics. I don't know how many keep up with their country's politics, but I know that where I'm from, it's few.

I know passionate debate is quick to come about when the topic is politics, but I think we're all grown up enough here to handle it, or just ignore it. If not, run along little Bambis.

As for myself and just to get things going,Right now, I'm undecided on this fall's election. I'm not voting Obama in for a second term, didn't want him for the first. I've been a Ron Paul fan since '08, so it's kind of hard for me to give Romney the a-okay. There were always very few subjects I agreed with him upon (main one I do agree with is his stance on energy production in the US, which he mentioned at the RNC tonight, though I have to do more research on that). Not that I can even vote yetWe'll see how it plays out for the States this fall, but it's not looking too good either way. As for the RNC, nothing spectacular, just a good show of the "good" of Romney+repubs. Some pretty nice speeches, particularly Condi's, though Pam Finlayson and Oparowski's stories were some crowd favorites, especially among my mom and gma Some lackluster and pointless speeches there too, but what do you expect, honestly? Will definitely be watching the DNC as well.So I am a Republican (middle-right) but I prefer the right answer, not the Republican or Democrat one (as JFK once said.) Still educating myself on the political world, but I'm incredibly interested in it and am particularly passionate about the lack of young adults' attention for it. Quite annoying really.

And you? Republican/Democrat/Socialist/Libertarian/Independent/Nothing,etc? Thoughts on the RNC? Favorite/Least Favorite politician? Videos and articles? Anything? Discuss! At the very least I hope you have an opinion!I sincerely hope no one "hates politics" here, chooses not to vote, etc, because this is your life. "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Honestly this is one of my only peeves when it comes to politics, so while I welcome your opinion and want to know what you believe, I'd hope any discussion wouldn't float around how much people hate politics.

Democrat, worked for Democratic candidates as press secretary, fundraiser, and editor. Former employee of the DNC, former delegate, pledged supporter of Hillary in 2008. Voted Obama, of course. Agree with Obama/Democratic Platform 92%. The 8% is because I'm further to the left. I consider myself a democratic socialist (which is a political ideology, not to be confused with my party membership, which is Democratic). I'm pro-government, pro-social services, pro-socialised medicine, pro-union (I'm currently a member of my union's executive committee), pro-choice, pro-LGBT rights. I also believe in a strong Navy (which is called for in the Constitution), but a strong standing army, our large number of overseas bases, and our undeclared military conflicts concern me.

Taite wrote:I sincerely hope no one "hates politics" here, chooses not to vote, etc, because this is your life. "One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." Honestly this is one of my only peeves when it comes to politics, so while I welcome your opinion and want to know what you believe, I'd hope any discussion wouldn't float around how much people hate politics.

See, this attitude is, conversely, one of MY pet peeves. I've made several posts on this subject already before, and I don't feel like getting angry about this again, but I'm sorry - because it is my vote and my life is exactly why I DON'T vote. I've seen enough of this. Let me quote a few posts I made about it before...

Otohiko during the last Canadian election wrote:I'm gonna be really uncool according to a lot of people today, but I'm not voting. Not because I'm lazy or uninformed, but because after making a genuine effort familiarizing myself with platforms, candidates, and all the possible options, I see nothing to vote for except "lesser evils", which I can't ethically agree with anymore. And I'm really disappointed in that. Sorry Canada.

If you think that this is without any foundation, allow me to quote one of the public figures, a Russian musician and poet whom I greatly respect, as to why my reasons for this...

Boris Grebenschikov wrote:My childhood, my formative years, were lived under the Soviet regime... voting under the Soviet regime was absolutely meaningless. To date, anything is yet to change my point of view... any ballot is completely meaningless [...] One cannot say that we determine the regime, or the regime determines us: we determine each other. We exist in the same universe. The thing is, choosing between two people that I know absolutely nothing about... based on what, falsified information? Sorry, but I know it's falsified. Thankfully, people like me are a minority. There will always be people who vote. My voice is simply not needed.

And while that was spoken by another person, that may as well have been said by me. I don't know how you know that voting is "your life, your choice" - you may have good reasons, and I can respect that. However, in my case, please do not look down on my position - it is born out not by imagination, but by direct historical experience of me and my family. This is not a matter of laziness or lack of ethics, but quite the opposite - the only way for me to preserve my ethical position and not be complicit in what I see as unfair agendas.

***

Therein, perhaps, lies the issue with my political leanings - I do not like to call myself "a" something. I will never, ever belong to any political party or movement. I will never state anything in terms of identity.

I do generally have very socialist leanings, and although in some ways I'm very pragmatic and reasonable, in others I'm what some people would regard as radically on the left. No party in North America adequately represents my views, and probably never will.

I am very liberal on most social issues, although unlike a lot of the social democrat movements, I regard them as actually unimportant and not the business of government at all. I hate how these have taken over politics, and this is one reason I refuse to vote, especially in the face of huge economic issues that are out there today. American politics in particular gets scorn from me for its flavour of right-wing (and both major parties in the US are right-wing by any global standard) social obsessions that distract the US from dealing with the massive responsibility that the country has by virtue of its unique economic position. all the same, I'm not a radical here in any sense, and some of my social views could even be considered somewhat conservative. More than anything, I believe in an enlightened, pragmatic approach to dealing with social issues that should not be dictated from above and should work at community level first and foremost.

Economically, I am pretty radical. I am not necessarily Marxist, but to a degree I am a materialist. The less is said of what I think about capitalism, the better. Here economic libertarians usually get flak from me, because of my belief that one cannot simply be left alone to do what they want with what they earned. For me the real crux of the issue is ethics - i.e. the REAL price of everything, and the reality of what one "really earns". I honestly think that noone should be allowed to be rich beyond a certain point, and I won't say where I think this cut-off point is, but suffice to say it's lower than what most people think. I believe that rewarding speculation and "permissible cheating" of markets is no foundation for a healthy society, and the degree to which the present-day markets have taken it is beyond criminal - and practically everyone is complicit to a degree. Again, I won't shoot my mouth off on what should be done about it, but like I said, my views are pretty radical.

I still do have some faith in Western liberal democracy, but I think the degree to which the political systems of most places have been sabotaged by runaway market capitalism have rendered it practically unsalvageable. Having lived through the total collapse of one society and ideology already, I have few reservations and regrets about the prospect of this one crashing down. It's bound to happen. It's not a big thing, not an apocalypse like some people think it is - life goes on. My bigger concern will be with what comes after.

Recently I’ve been haunting myself. The shocking thing is how easy it is to disappear if you really want to. I wonder for the millionth time how long it will be before anyone misses me.-SW/HCE

Both parties have ticked me off too much this year that I've just concluded not to vote because 1) They don't talk about the issues that need to be discussed, 2) both parties just talk about how they lived their lives before and 3) Condalessa Rice. xD Sorry, I like almost her whole speech until she mentioned that our friends are our friends and our foes will be our friends. What I don't like about that statement is that she implies that there are foes out there that we need to fight... Though I do like and hate speeches, I think its better to research both parties first and see which one will be more beneficial to my future.

Lastly... I was hoping to vote for Ron Paul as well v.v Guess we're not so lucky but I'll wait until his time comes around.

For now, I'll root for Obama just because I want to get my degree before America goes under. After that, at least I'll be able to work as an engineer while America builds itself back up. If that doesn't happen... then I guess I'm screwed for four to eight years. x)

I am some kind of a communist. I know it's become a little bit fashionable lately to be a communist in the academic circles due to the popularity of certain intellectuals but there's a good reason for that, namely the on going crisis of capitalism. Communism should be rediscovered, fully acknowledging the failures of the 20th century, and re-defined for the present day era.

Otohiko wrote:Economically, I am pretty radical. I am not necessarily Marxist, but to a degree I am a materialist. The less is said of what I think about capitalism, the better. Here economic libertarians usually get flak from me, because of my belief that one cannot simply be left alone to do what they want with what they earned. For me the real crux of the issue is ethics - i.e. the REAL price of everything, and the reality of what one "really earns".

Perhaps a better way to formulate this would be to simply say that yes, everyone should be do whatever the hell they want with what they've earned, it's just that in the present day capitalist society your income doesn't really reflect your real earnings. We don't live in a meritocracy where everyone is rewarded according to their efforts. In this sense the problem is ethical: your income isn't legitimately earned in the sense of social justice, it's always overdetermined by your class position, privilege or by pure chance, always either too high or too low.

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, it to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”—John Adams

Look what its done to this country so far... seems legit.

TL;DR Parties don't work.

They just don't. Can you imagine how much easier it would be for politicians to speak their mind among themselves if they weren't binded to a group. It's like sitting among the opposite teams area at a football game and saying the the other team had a really nice strategy for that touchdown. Even if you did think so, you wouldn't say so among the other teams fans.

Also, I try to avoid any real coverage till presidential debates. All I want to hear is usually whats on those. Not that they will actually do what they say but atleast we get a general idea since they have to respond with little discourse beforehand.

I really have alot to say, but this is enough.

"The people cannot be [...] always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to [...] the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to public liberty. What country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned [...] that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants."-Thomas Jefferson

I'm going to keep this short, because I don't want to write a novel, but it's something that I think more people should talk about more frequently with a clearer head. Plus, it will be nice to talk to someone that isn't someone in my own state. My God, the stupidity around here is astounding. >_>

I side morally with Democrats, but I do have republican economic/tax/American ideals that I agree with. Both sides piss me off massively. I essentially vote for the candidate, not the party. Parties in the modern age are the biggest bunch of radical junk that assures that fair and balanced talking on the issues is impossible.

In this election, I am more likely to vote Democrat than Republican and support President Obama for a second term. Why? Well, the obvious aforementioned moral reasons. Gay rights are at the forefront of my voting mind at the moment, right alongside proposed tax adjustments at the IRS and the plans at the Federal Reserve. It continues to disgust me that we live in our age and still have a federal government that's so ignorant of basic rights. As some of you know, I also suffer from arthritis and will be un-insurable at the age of 26. My medicine costs $1500 a needle, so I'm sure you can also imagine my support behind his healthcare plan as well. Very selfish reason the latter, I know, but I have to look out for my own interests, considering the medical community won't.

We don't live in a meritocracy where everyone is rewarded according to their efforts. In this sense the problem is ethical: your income isn't legitimately earned in the sense of social justice, it's always overdetermined by your class position, privilege or by pure chance, always either too high or too low.

@Otohiko: Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my statement. Your reasons for not voting are completely justifiable, and they are the reasons why I don't think I would vote this November if I could (especially concerning choosing between "lesser evils"). What I was referring to was generally what I see where I'm from which is genuinely lazy people, who don't vote because it's too much effort, doesn't really concern them, and then they become the people who don't even know their Vice President, which is plenty here trust me. So I'm sorry if you took offense, but I didn't mean ALL people that choose not to vote, because there are several reasons not to vote that are more justifiable than my sister's, so sorry that came off weird.

Taite, you might look into Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate. He should be on the ballot in nearly every state. I think he was taken off the ballot in Oklahoma, but he should be on the ballot everywhere else. He's not perfectly in line with Ron Paul, but he's very, very close.

EvaFan,

I support parties, I just wish there were more of them. And I say this as a committed member of one of the two major parties. I am not threatened by third parties. I think it would be better for my own party if we were forced to streamline our platform. It's even possible that I mind ened up in a party even closer to my views (although 92% is pretty darn high, so maybe not). I don't ever vote R, but in many of my races at the local and state level, as a Democrat from Texas, I often have to choose between an R and G or R and an L, and I always vote the G or the L so that they can reach the 15% they need to continue to receive recognition and funding.

I'm registered independent. I could really care less if a candidate is Republican or Democrat though, I look at their policies and wither or not I feel like they could actually act on the things they say. Which works two ways, first, if I feel like they will act on a policy i like or don't like, or i feel like they can't/wont act on a policy i do like. I voted for Obama 4 years ago and most likely will again this year (not terribly enthusiastic about it). Personally I think our whole political system is fucked up to begin with. I'd like to see campaign funding reduced and allow people who aren't rich/have rich friends have a much larger presence.

As far as voting, I've made it a personal "mission" to actively vote. I feel like it's my duty as a citizen wither or not I 100% agree with all the policies of the person I vote for. I do look at it as the "lesser evil" and I'm ok with that but I can understand if someone would rather just not vote in that case *cough* George, you lazy bum... I keed, i keed :-* On a serious note though, I would much rather people have a good reason for not voting, like George, then having a stupid excuse like being lazy, like George (i wanna play DayZ D:).

Like the AMV .Org App? Think about donating to help me make it better.

This. I find most political debate to be completely obnoxious because people have usually made up their minds already, so discussing it accomplishes nothing. There is definitely some nuanced discussion going on here, but I get really tired of friends from both parties spouting hyperbole all over the place for the better part of a year.

According to http://www.ISideWith.com, I am 87% in line with the politics of Barack Obama, 86% with the Green party candidate, Jill Stein, and 36% with Mitt Romney.

Sadly enough, my stance on politics is knowingly in the camp of ignorance. I realize the importance of an informed and educated populace, but by my own hypocrisy, I don't take the time to get to know my politicians. I think this does stem from some of the problems that George talked about. I tend to feel like, in this day and age at least, political leaders tend to lead more to disappointment than anything else. It's the whole lesser evils argument. I remember back in 2004, it was especially heated that everybody go out and vote because George W Bush was so vehemently hated, and that it didn't matter who replaced him. Sorry, but John Kerry did not impress me in the slightest (neither did Bush). So it was like the South Park episode. Douche or a Turd Sandwich. Not a decision I was interested in making. But on the other side of the coin, there ARE other candidates out there who may actually be legitimate great choices for president (at least based on my own ideals) that people don't bother voting for because "there's no point. It's going to be a democrat or a republican." Which, is undeniably true. But it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So yeah, I don't really know what to say on the matter. I'm just not educated enough (by my own fault) to have a legitimate and meaningful discussion about the issues at hand. Sad, but true.

Taite wrote:There were always very few subjects I agreed with him upon (main one I do agree with is his stance on energy production in the US, which he mentioned at the RNC tonight, though I have to do more research on that).

Why do you agree with his stance? I think his energy policy has some holes in it, especially with regard to his very strong assertions about the failure of wind and solar power generation.

Taite wrote:Still educating myself on the political world, but I'm incredibly interested in it and am particularly passionate about the lack of young adults' attention for it. Quite annoying really.

I find it annoying too.

I want to find a way to turn that apathy into hatred. Real hatred. I then want to combine that hatred with the will to execute and direct it towards politicians. (Might as well get some lawyers in the trawl, too.) They may still not listen, but they'll at least cower away. (Historically, that has worked in the US.) There's one big problem with my plan, which is dealing with police and military forces; I'm still trying to figure out a way around that obstacle.

That isn't the utopian scenario in which everyone listens to everyone and we make progress regardless of disagreements, but it's good enough for me. No, it probably won't improve productivity or problem-solving in this country, but -- just as it is satisfying to kill pests in your home -- it will be immensely satisfying. Well, until the American Napoleon comes around.

You can probably tell that I am disgusted at the parasites involved in the political dysfunction we call a "process". (And they are parasites, the worst sort of opportunistic ones. Why else would Obama turn the recent successes of Curiosity into a victory for "American knowhow and ingenuity"? "Americans" in abstract don't deserve to bathe in that glory. You do not deserve that glory -- well, unless you worked on Curiosity -- and neither do I. The Mars Curiosity team deserves it.)